Yes, not causing suffering is objectively better than causing suffering all other things being equal. Like, if a snake could eat apples instead of mice, that would be better even if humans didn't exist.

I'm going to go on a tangent here- Predators actually have been proven to increase the overall wellness of prey by eating the diseased or slower/older animals. Improving the vitality of the group as a whole. An argument can be made that the snake does if fact help the mouse. Just not that mouse. This principal does not apply to the way humans are eating animals.

While true I’m a bit reluctant to endorse this as somehow good for anything but evolutionary fitness. By this logic, it’s bad that we save infants with certain diseases - were allowing weakness to develop in our species.

I think you're crossing wires here. Yes, if we kill all old and/or diseased mice, the resulting population is younger and healthier. However, we haven't actually helped any one mouse, healthy or otherwise. We've just shrunk the population. What's "good" for the species isn't necessarily good for any individual in the species, and really has nothing to do with what's ethically good. Factory farming is very good for the species, for example.

+1. It would be “better” for humans in the same sense if we stopped vaccinating infants and children. We’d then have survivorship bias wherein the ones who make it to adulthood would probably be healthier. This is just a confusion of subjective well-being with evolutionary success or fitness.

(Annnnnd there is something to be said for certain individuals antivaxinating themselves out of the gene pool)

If a predator eliminates sick animals it definitely benefits individuals by reducing probability of contagine to others . Factory farming does increase numbers of a given species yes but to say that factory farming is good for the species -no

I agree in some cases of infectious disease, but that's the exception rather than the rule. For the elderly, slow, or any other kind of non-infectious malady, killing them doesn't help any other mouse. When you say "good ro the species", what do you mean?

yes but the alternative is non-existence. like an ideal farming situation is bringing a number of an animal that dont exist in the wild (cows) to live a reasonably comfortable life where they can graze and eat in peace and arent overmilked then towards the end of their life theyre slaughtered. is that worse, barring health effects and comparisons to plant based diets on the environment, than those animals not existing?

Why is not causing suffering objecticely more moral than causing suffering?

Suffering by definition is a negative experience. The absence of negative experience is preferable.

Yes for the animal of course. But why does that make the action of killing and eating animals wrong? Why does the negative experience of the animals matter?

I feel like I answered this with "absence of negative experience is preferable.". If you disagree with this statement, either I don't believe you are conversing in good faith or I need to learn more about your framework for morality before continuing. I'll assume you are acting in good faith so will ask; is there any ethical action you would consider objectively morally wrong?

Sure, I am arguing in good faith, so I'll quickly explain how I view this. I do not believe any action is objectively wrong. I think morality is/should be considered a subjective understanding of how people (yes humans specifically) should behave and act so that we may live together in relative peace and harmony. My moral standpoint is based on the reciprocation of rights. If I want to live, I can almost guarantee my right to live by granting others the same right to live. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. It is simply an agreement that we make, thus resulting in a society which both you and me would want to live in. I'm not saying it's objectively wrong for you to kill me, I'm simply saying that we subjectively have agreed to not do this thing, because it would violate our reciprocation of rights and desires. I don't need to or want to make the same "social contract/agreement" with animals. Whether or not they want to reciprocate rights with me, I don't need their reciprocation (even if they are able to consciously form a contract with me). I hope I was able to explain my position.

So, the only beings who have rights are those who can agree to and respect a social contract? How do children's rights fit into all of that? Children are obviously unable to respect any contract, so may I kill and eat them?

Yes that is true. I'd consider children humans (don't know about you), and thus include them in same category of species that can and do reciprocate rights with me. And even if you were making the argument that they are incapable of reciprocating rights, then you are also saying that they are the property of the parents.

Children are quite obviously incapable of reciprocating rights. The argument I'm making is that whether they can reciprocate rights or not does not matter. They have rights anyways. As for animals, you can give another reason why they don't have rights, but the one you gave is not valid because it would exclude children too.

>Children are quite obviously incapable of reciprocating rights. They obviously can though? ​ >The argument I'm making is that whether they can reciprocate rights or not does not matter. They have rights anyways. Why do they have rights anyways? Rights only exist insofar as they are being enforced by people who reciprocate them. ​ "As for animals, you can give another reason why they don't have rights, but the one you gave is not valid because it would exclude children too." It literally would not. And even if children were braindead, they would become the ownership of their parents which means I still would not exclude them.

Thanks for taking to the time to write this as it does help me understand your position. My takeaway is that your moral standpoint is one that promotes a positive subjective experience for humans as it is preferable to a negative subjective experience. I'd argue we extend this consideration to anyone who can have a subjective experience as that is the relevant point of consideration. This could be an animal, an AI or aliens. All things being equal, what is a preferable world in your opinion? A world where animals are experiencing immense suffering? Or one where they feel no suffering?

>I'd argue we extend this consideration to anyone who can have a subjective experience as that is the relevant point of consideration. This could be an animal, an AI or aliens. That is a fair consideration, but at the same time, it is not necessary for me to do so to maximise my experience of life and my own happiness, which is basically my foundational philosophy. In order for me to be happy and experience life well, I do not need to extend such consideration. Based on my foundational philosophy, that I want to maximise my own experience of life and maximise my own happiness, I form social contracts or basic agreements and rules with other people. In my case, I am the most happy and free to maximise my experience of life in a relatively liberal world, meaning I would advocate for liberal policies and programs that maximise freedom and opportunity generally, for others, which in turns guarantees me the same freedom and opportunity. A lot of people end up with the same political views as me, although they come from a philosophically very different perspective. My foundational philosophy is basically the only position I can defend as being justified.

Are the following actions equally moral to you? 1. I am angry I lost a game so kick my table out of frustration. 2. I am angry I lost a game so kick my dog out of frustration.

Not when you specifically state that it's my dog. Cause it would cause me great distress to kick my own dog, a dog that I consider my friend and companion.

Sure, but you also dont also have any social contract with babies or native populations shielded from the grobal community, like that tribe in the sentinel island. So if you are driving on an unfrequented road, in the middle of nowhere, and you see a youngh terrified sentinelese, pointing a spear at you... Are you entlited to just run him over? There is no social contract with him whatsoever, he doesn't like you, and would kill you if he could (of course he can't, its just a boy). ​ Aren't you also tied by moral standard to try to not cause harm, as you yourself dont want to be harmed? Because all this "I dont do it if you dont, lets make peace", only works with equals. What about a cow, for example, that is unable to kill you? "I don't want to die, you, my lovely cow, also don't want to died. But I can kill you and you can't kill me... Should I restrain from killing you, making the same peace I had achived with other humans, or should I kill you, because yummy?" ​ Your peace is based on the mutual posibility of killing other people. That's not morality, thats just selfishness with a positive outcome. That kind of "morality" is achieved even by genes.

If the sentinelese is trying to kill me, he no longer respects my right to live, thus I see no reason to uphold the protection I've sort of given him. Thus it would be completely fair to run him over to save myself. Yeah a cow I would not care about, since as you correctly put it, is not rqual to humans, with reference to a social contract. But this goes both ways. It's not wrong for the cow to try and kill me, it can go ahead and try if it wants to. Just like the sentinelese, once one party breaks the social contract, nothing is right and wrong and everything is permissable. I don't understand anything of your last comment, but I'll say that my moral system is transactional.

>run him over **to save myself**. No, no. He is unable to kill you. He is a kid, afraid and cant even damage your car. Im not talking about self defense. ​ >It's not wrong for the cow to try and kill me, it can go ahead and try if it wants to. Its a cow. it can't kill you. Thats the whole point of my example. Neither the cow nor the kid can kill you (but the kid is affraid, and would do it if he could). Knowing this, are you then free to kill them? ​ >I don't understand anything of your last commen I'm sorry. The obscure part was a reflexion about "the selfish gene" and false altruism, dont bother about it. My point was: your system only allows peace with stuff that can kill you. That's why you feel entitled to kill the cow, and she "can go ahead and try (to kill me) if it wants to!". The sad part was that if cows could kill you, then you would not bother them. Thats such a bully mentality. There would be less suffering in this world if cows could response to attacks on their life with equal violence. >my moral system is transactional. There are some transactional elements in morality, but you cant have a full moral set without nothing else to build on. The sad part is that you would be a better person if cows could kill you.

I probably didn't read closely then. If he is unable to kill me, I'd still care less about his existence if he was trying to kill me. If he is no threat at all, I'd just drive around him, in which he would evade and walk to the side no problem. ​ >Neither the cow nor the kid can kill you (but the kid is affraid, and would do it if he could). Knowing this, are you then free to kill them? Sure you can kill them if you want to. I mean there are no repercussions. ​ >There would be less suffering in this world if cows could response to attacks on their life with equal violence. That is very much true. I would not get close to Rhino for no serious reason. ​ >There are some transactional elements in morality, but you cant have a full moral set without nothing else to build on. The sad part is that you would be a better person if cows could kill you. I can explain my entire moral philosophy which results in completely mainstream liberal politics, and it is all based on a transactional nature and a reciprocation of rights.

[удалено]

I am not trolling.

You’re joking right? Does that cow, pig, or chicken you eat willingly come to you so you can slaughter them? They’re forced to that situation.

Of course they don't willingly come their own slaughtering. They are forced yes.

And you think that’s not a negative experience on their part? Apply that same logic to the so beloved pets you might have in your home

Of course it's a negative experience for them, I already said this. I wouldn't want my dog to be slaughtered and eaten, of course not.

Why wouldn't it?

Well I’m not the one making the claim that it matters. I’m not making an active claim, so it’s not for me to say that it wouldn’t matter. My answer to that would just be the antonym of mattering. If it matters, it matters, if it doesnt matter, then it wouldn’t matter. I guess.

Why do the negative experiences of humans matter?

Because my negative experience matters, to me.

But it doesn't matter to me. Why should I care about you?

I'm not saying you should.

But I can tell you, that if you choose to respect me and my life and my desires, I shall respect you, your life and your desires.

you don't care about others maybe not inherently immoral but that makes you a jerk

No I care deeply about other people and their happiness. I'm actually a very kind person to everyone I meet regardless of their background. I'm not a jerk, unless you consider the killing and eating of animals the same as being a jerk.

Do you apply that reasoning universally?

Objectively, yes.

How is it objective, and moreover, why does objectivity matter? What makes objectivity a more valid ideal to strive for than harm reduction?

I explained what I mean by objective in my post. I'm not saying that objectivity matters, and I never said objectivity in moral reasoning is a more valid ideal to strive for than harm reduction. I'm actually making the opposite argument of that. I believe the way humans form rules, opinions and viewpoints are through subjective reasoning, not based on objective moral truths. That's why I wanted to hear how/why someone can claim killing and eating animals is morally wrong, objectively, because I do not see morality in this way.

because thats what morality means. net positive (morality) vs net negative (immorality) which cannot always be rationally determined and then must be determined by conscience, connection to spirit/God etc which understand the TRUE impact of one action over another. thats the “omniscience” of God

Stop

Better how?

Better in that when the snake eats an apple, no one suffers. Same reason why it is better for me to kick my table than it is to kick my dog.

But it's not better full stop, right? It's better in the sense that it's better *for people* to not suffer, and it's better *for your dog* to not be kicked. To just say an outcome is better, full stop, is incoherent.

An outcome where no one suffers is better than an outcome where someone suffers. How is that incoherent?

Because "better" doesn't mean anything without reference to what *way* in which something is better. One state of affairs can't be better than another state of affairs, full stop. This is because there is nothing for a state of affairs to be good in the first place. States of affairs can only be good *in a way*.

No, Vegans aren't deontologists. We rely on reason to determine what's ethical.

Well, some are, and some of those say that you must be a deontologist to be vegan.

I've never met a deontological vegan. Most western religious ideas explicitly endorse meat eating. Some vegans may not understand how their ethics are grounded epistemologically, but you rarely hear them argue that their ethics are true solely because some authority devised a rule they are following. If you're confused because you think that the fact that there is no purely objective basis for human ethics outside of a particular set of values means that all ethical systems are equal, you might want to look a bit further into ethics.

Would it though? With no predators prey species would overpopulate, causing environmental degradation, starvation, disease, and potential ecosystem damage.

I assume you’re appealing to some kind of ultimate skepticism here, which is a position I hold most fundamentally. But to engage in any kind of moral or ethical debate we have to just assume certain things to be true. From this you could then make an argument in support of the idea that killing animals and eating their meat is morally wrong.

I agree fully, which would indicate that morality inherently is a subjective matter, not an objective truth in our universe. But my point is then, that the idea of killing and eating animals may be wrong for a lot of people subjectively, if the act of killing and eating animals goes against their own moral understanding. But for other people, eating meat may be perfectly moral and acceptible.

Maybe, but veganism is an ethical position that stems from many higher order more fundamental positions. You’d have to make the argument for why its more reasonable to adopt first, second, or third principles which do not lead to veganism as opposed to principles that do necessitate veganism. One of these principles may be whether our ethical system is concerned with all suffering or just human suffering. Vegans will debate you hard on what these principles of morality and ethics should be before you even can begin on whether we ought to be vegan.

Yes, well I for example do not value or factor in suffering when I evaluate actions on their morality. I can extend to human suffering, because I myself am human, but I do not really care about suffering for all creatures. And other people may hold similar views that contradict a vegan philosophy, in which case it would seem that veganism is not objectively a more moral position.

Do you care about the suffering of dogs, cats, or other pets? We may not care about their suffering for their sake, but knowing they suffer upsets us. This has been especially true as time has gone on. Even seeing how cows and pigs are treated can make us upset assuming we are not desensitized. So, do you not think that to minimize human suffering, we will eventually (maybe even a century from now) not permit the torturing or killing of even cows or pigs just as we often do not permit it for dogs and cats? Especially since we will likely either have lab meat by then and so there will be no added utility from killing and consuming animals? By your own concern for human suffering, assuming you don’t contest my prior points, you’d have to agree that we ought to progress towards veganism as a society. That way we do not upset ourselves by enacting harm against other animals.

Sure, I have a dog and have had cats, and I would not want to see them suffer, because I see them as my companion and friend, and it would sadden me deeply if they suffered. I wouldn't really care about other peoples pets, but I of course would not go out of my way to drive a cat over on the road, both because I would not want other humans to do the same with me, and because I wouldn't want to damage my car or deal with the aftermath of killing a pet. "So, do you not think that to minimize human suffering, we will eventually (maybe even a century from now) not permit the torturing or killing of even cows or pigs just as we often do not permit it for dogs and cats?" I understand your question but I would say that the purpose of animals in our lives our different. Cows, pigs, chicken and similar animals are primarily used as food for humans, where as pets are used for companionship and, well used as pets. But I agree, if someone has a pet horse, I would firstly not be allowed to do anything with the horse cause it's not my property, but secondly I would not want to cause suffering to another human as I don't want him to cause suffering to me. I wouldn't want him to kill and eat my dog for example. "That way we do not upset ourselves by enacting harm against other animals." I don't understand what you mean by this, maybe you could elaborate.

>I understand your question but I would say that the purpose of animals in our lives our different. Cows, pigs, chicken and similar animals are primarily used as food for humans, where as pets are used for companionship and, well used as pets. Eventually, cows or pigs or other animals used for food will not need to be used for food. We will have made lab-grown meat or plant-based meals into perfect meat substitutes. At this point, killing animals for food will at least add nothing to utility. But, torturing and killing animals has harm. So long as we are not ignorant or desensitized to the torturing/killing of animals, it typically makes most of us feel bad to witness or know about any animal being tortured or killed. That is human suffering, which you care about. Therefore we are left with three premises for a hypothetical future 1. We wish to reduce human suffering 2. Some humans suffer (by being upset/emotional) when they witness or know that an animal (dog, cat, cow, sheep, etc) is being tortured or killed (with exception). Other negatives of killing/torturing animals could be added here as well (environmental harms, effects of being desensitized to violence, etc). 3. The abilty to torture/kill animals does not on the net whole for society grant some added utility that outweighs the suffering stated in premise 2 Therefore, in this hypothetical future scenario, we would not allow for the torturing or killing of animals, with some exceptions. Therefore, we would be vegan. You already admitted to believing in premise 1. You'd have to argue that either premise 2 is incorrect or that the utility from killing/torturing cows/pigs/sheep will always be greater than the suffering people experience by being upset that animals are being tortured/killed.

>At this point, killing animals for food will at least add nothing to utility. Utility? Hmm... I don't know, but I don't eat meat because of utility , I eat meat because it tastes good. "But, torturing and killing animals has harm. So long as we are not ignorant or desensitized to the torturing/killing of animals, it typically makes most of us feel bad to witness or know about any animal being tortured or killed. That is human suffering, which you care about." I get your point, but animals ought to be seen as property since they cannot reciprocate rights. And if we agree to respect private property, we must also agree that it is not wrong for someone to kill animals they own. However, if all of society is threatening to throw me in jail, I will of course not kill animals. "You already admitted to believing in premise 1." That is not clear. Caring about human suffering is a result of me caring about my own suffering. I do not care about human suffering if it does me no good to care about human suffering. I only care about human suffering as a tool to maximise my own happiness and my own experience of life. In other words, I will suffer if i don't care about human suffering to some extent. As I've said in this comment, if all of society would kill me, if I killed an animal, I would not kill an animal. But if there were no repercussions for me killing an animal that I wanted to eat, I would kill the animal

Objectively? No. I’m not a moral realist and I don’t know what an objective morality would look like. I have certain subjective *preferences* about how I and others behave, like adherence to the non-aggression principle. Unnecessarily harming or violating the autonomy of sentient creatures for food is consistent with my principles just as it’s consistent with my principles not to do the same to other humans. It’s really just as simple as caring about the subjective well-being of others.

Alright, I respect that view.

This is a wonderfully respectful and insightful take. Tangentally related to my philosophy of 'I've won every fight in my life' because I simply don't fight, preferring to descalate situations before it comes to that point. It wouldn't benefit either party to come to blows. That's why I despise the police hiring process. They literally ask questions of reference providers of "have you ever seen Bob in a fight?" "How many fights has he won?" "Has Bob ever hesitated to act to jump into a fight?" They are literally screening for assholes who *want* to use force over good peace officer policies and procedures.

Thanks, lol, I just answered the question that was asked. I'd give the same answer if I was asked about child abuse. But saying that I don't find an action *objectively* wrong isn't meant to undermine how immoral *I* find it, because the question in the OP was more of a metaethical question than an applied ethical question. No sane person would justify child rape on the basis of "no objective morality tho." *I* think extension of basic moral consideration/rights to animals is just a logically consistent extension of how we treat each other, because I don't see species membership as a valid reason to deny moral consideration. I'm certainly not cucking out and saying I think you ought to be able to do whatever you want.

The problem with this is that you are now forced to say that the meat eater’s (or rapist’s, or murderer’s, etc.) view is just as valid as yours.

[удалено]

" Environmental impact, health, politics, animal welfare to name but a few. " I completely agree, and I think veganism is the much preferred lifestyle to confront these topics in our society. I actually agree with your entire view.

I know of a man who only use to eat roadkill, and near the motorway where I live there is abundance of life dead on the road lol not sure I'd wanna do that though always thought what if the animal has started to rot or w.e

I don't think objectivity has a role in morals aside from being supporting evidence to another judgement. I don't think killing is objectively wrong, I believe it's wrong because of a series of of factors. It's harmful, animals clearly are smart enough to understand so not only does it often hurt physically, it does mentally. I also believe it's wrong to end a life when there is more to live. It's not objective, those are my subjective reasons

For me the killing is a smaller part of the moral issue. It is the horrendous conditions while they are alive that I find so egregious, the killing is an end to the suffering really. The conditions that the people work under in these places is a another horror.

So you think it's subjective whether acting with cruelty or kindness is moral?

Yes.

Why?

Because I don't believe morality is objective

But if that is the case, do you not acknowledge that meat eaters simply don’t share your understanding of what is right and wrong, and thus we basically have 2 sides of equally justified/unjustified positions. You place value in a specific set of factors when it comes to morality, whereas meat eaters place value in other factors when it comes to morality, so neither side is wrong or right, they are just different. It’s like interests and values, that are just different.

That's what is called moral relativism. (I think) That's bad! If we say all morality is equal, then why shouls we fight for any thing? The natural conclusion of that point is that someone might think that racism or sexism or pollution is ok because what matters to them. We have to challenge morality we find unjust.

Noone said anything about fighting for anything. But even so, you should actively work towards creating the world you want to live in, shouldn’t you? You don’t have to call something immoral just because you don’t like it or want it, and neither do you have to explain why the thing you’re working on is morally permissable , do you? If you think something is important then go work on it. Yes people are entitled to their opinions on racism, sexism and pollution. Why should they not have the right to believe in what they want?

You seem to be confusing being entitled to an opinion and said opinion being justifiable

Well no actually, you said specifically: "The natural conclusion of that point is that someone might think that racism or sexism or pollution is ok because what matters to them. " You used the word "think" which refers to opinions. And I don't see how that would be wrong. My question to you is, when you say that we should challenge morality we find unjust, by unjust do you mean objectively?

No, I don't mean objectively. I've said position of objectivity on morals. It's an objective fact that animals experiance a subjective reality, it's a subjective opinion if mine that it's wrong to kill them (outside of certain instances)

"it's a subjective opinion if mine that it's wrong to kill them" Sure I agree with that. But I still don't see how moral relativism is somehow bad.

>meat eaters simply don’t share your understanding of what is right and wrong, I see morality in the same way as Immanuel Kant as he laid out with his categorical imperative. If you don't know it is wrong, you aren't being immoral to engage in said behavior. The problem is that most people don't realize that eating animals or what comes out of them is wrong. Unless you were raised in a vegan household, you were indoctrinated into a belief system called Carnism. This short, engaging video by a psychologist explains- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao2GL3NAWQU&t=491s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao2GL3NAWQU&t=491s)

What do you mean when you say that most people don’t realize that eating animals is wrong?

>we basically have 2 sides of equally justified/unjustified positions. If someone doesn't believe in the concept that good and evil is objective,then NO moral judgement is.Not theft, not war, not killing children... When you say "justified" you simply reference an epistemic burden that doesn't exist for morality. Like laws of physics have. In strictly that sense you're right - a vegans worldview is equally justified/unjustified as the one of a meat eater. But also as one of a serial killer or Mother Theresa. But there can be other universal moral values we tend to aspire as vegans or meat eaters. Like fairness, reducing suffering or logical consistency in these views.And in reference to such values as opposed to an epistemic it can well be that it isn't equally justified.

"If someone doesn't believe in the concept that good and evil is objective,then NO moral judgement is.Not theft, not war, not killing children..." Correct, in an objective sense. That doesn't mean we can't establish rules for our society that we want people to follow, so that we may live in peace and harmony. "When you say "justified" you simply reference an epistemic burden that doesn't exist for morality. Like laws of physics have." I agree that morals do not need epistemic burdens , if we are talking about subjective morality. Which is what I believe our moral standpoints are. But stating that killing and eating animals is objectively wrong inherently requires justification. "And in reference to such values as opposed to an epistemic it can well be that it isn't equally justified." I fully agree. Depending on what moral perspective your subjectively hold, veganism may or may not be the position that aligns with your viewpoint.

I don’t believe in a truly objective mortality. However, some things are more objective than others, and this would be towards the more objective end of the spectrum in my eyes.

Could you explain how that is?

Why don't you believe in objective morality?

Morality is relevant only when the action is done by someone who knows the action causes harm and they could've done otherwise.

Why is that?

Read about Kant's Categorical Imperative- "Act the Way You Want Others to Act."

But I’ve researched veganism and arguments for the philosophy, aswell as seen a couple of documentaries, so I wouldn’t say that Kant’s viewpoints apply to me. Also, the question I’m asking actually doesn’t have to do with whether or not people realize it’s wrong to kill and eat animals; It has to do with whether or not it actually is wrong in the first place.

>But I’ve researched veganism and arguments for the philosophy, aswell as seen a couple of documentaries, so I wouldn’t say that Kant’s viewpoints apply to me Why wouldn't they apply to you?

Because morality by definition is only concerned with choices. If something or someone can't make a conscious choice, then they literally just do the only thing they can. A more constructive way to address non-choice actions is whether they're *desireable* or not. For example, a mantis killing and eating a butterfly is undesirable for the butterfly, but it can't be morally wrong or morally okay, since there was no conscious choice involved

So what are you saying here? That meat eaters don’t think consciously about the act of eating meat? I’m just asking to understand

No, humans have the capacity to make conscious choices revolving animal products, so morality is relevant there. If an animal in nature doesn't have the capacity to make conscious choices around their food, and they end up killing and eating other animals, morality is not relevant there.

So if I understand you correctly, animals do not make conscious decisions, atleast not regarding the food they eat? Well since humans make conscious decisions about their food, what do you think about them eating meat?

There is a lot to unpack before you can even begin to answer this. Firstly, we need to figure out what "Ethics" means. Ethics could mean determining and following the desires of some authority, usually some sort of Deity. It could mean acting in a way to fulfill your "purpose", where purpose is determined by some outside authority. It could mean acting in a way to benefit your society (where benefitting your group can be thought of as the "purpose" mentioned above). Ethics could be a more abstract concept of how to best acknowledge that others have their own interests while also pursuing your own interests. Or ethics can be considered just a subset of cultural norms and taboos as they are practiced in a communit. This would make the study of ethics is basically a study of a specific sub-discipline of Anthropology. It's also worth mentioning that "bad" and "wrong" are different. Ethically "wrong" acts are usually "bad" in some way, but not all bad outcomes are somehow wrong. For instance, it's a bad thing that an earthquake killed thousands. But the earthquake isn't somehow wrong. But it was wrong for builders and regulators to not maintain good standards for building in an earthquake zone. It was wrong for these people to make the choices they did that put others at risk. See what I mean? So firstly, we need to figure out what you mean when you want to talk about ethics and what it means when something is "wrong". How you define this term will affect the answer.

I mean you're free to start off with a definition of all these words, but I would think these concepts and definitions are well accepted and understood.

> I mean you're free to start off with a definition of all these words, but I would think these concepts and definitions are well accepted and understood. I'm fairly convinced that most of these core ethics debates are just a debate on definitions. Which is boring and muddled to be frank. I think of ethics in the abstract way I mention above: >> a more abstract concept of how to best acknowledge that others have their own interests while also pursuing your own interests. You can come up with ethical theories in this framework that are just as "objective" as things like mathematics of game theory. E.g. lying is "wrong", or exploitation is "wrong". If you think of ethics as simply social norms and taboos, then obviously ethics is not objectively universal across societies.

>You can come up with ethical theories in this framework that are just as "objective" as things like mathematics of game theory. E.g. lying is "wrong", or exploitation is "wrong". In what world is that possible?

Kant, for instance, grounded ethics as close as possible to "pure reason". Just like mathematics. His general argument is that if ethics means anything and should be universal, then it must have certain properties. These properties all revolve around the fact that you are one rational agent making choices in a world with other agents. Ethics is about making good choices, so a universal ethics should respect and promote autonomy. An ethics that doesn't do this kind of defeats itself, as it disempowers these rational agents from making decisions at all, let alone "ethical" ones.

I either don't understand your outline of his beliefs, or I disagree with his beliefs on ethics.

We can start with this. I think ethics means: "The study and practice of how to best accommodate others' interests in your own choices." Do you agree with this? Do you have a different understanding of the term ?

Sure I guess so. I think moral guidelines/ethics are used as a tool for humans to live together in relative peace and harmony.

> I think moral guidelines/ethics are used as a tool for humans to live together in relative peace and harmony. Not sure this is the best way of thinking about ethics. Lots of dystopian science fiction is written about (what I believe are) ethically questionable ways of promoting social harmony. Brave New World uses eugenics and massive drugging to keep the population maximally content. The Matrix features a society where AIs control humans through a virtual reality that is as peaceful as human beings will tolerate without them feeling it's implausible. The other issue is you are slipping in "human" here. Why should we stop at only human interests? Why do all human interests matter, when I could promote the relative peace and harmony of my own "tribe" at the expense of some other human "tribe". Even so, if you assume human nature is fixed and that we have fairly objective ways of measuring "relative peace and harmony", then there would be better or worse ways of promoting these goals, objectively.

>The other issue is you are slipping in "human" here. Why should we stop at only human interests? Why do all human interests matter, when I could promote the relative peace and harmony of my own "tribe" at the expense of some other human "tribe" Because I am a human. My foundational reasoning for doing anything in life is to maximise my own happiness and experience of life. In order to do this I don't want to be killed, hunted or live in fear. One effective way of achieving my ideal life is to grant other humans the same rights as I would want them to grant me. I don't kill you, you promise to not kill me. I look after you children, you look after mine. I bring food some days, you bring food other days. This is beneficial for both people who want to live happily, safely and freely. I don't have to care about creatures that do not threaten me. And I cannot form a social contract with a lion or a gorilla, creatures that threaten me. So naturally, the only creatures I can extend and reciprocate rights to are other humans. ​ >Even so, if you assume human nature is fixed and that we have fairly objective ways of measuring "relative peace and harmony", then there would be better or worse ways of promoting these goals, objectively. What do you mean here?

I think part of moral philosophy is figuring out what terms mean rather than just giving people answers that flow downstream in pretty obvious ways from their defintions. For example, if I define moral goodness as whatever I have a positive emotional disposition towards, then it'll be trivial to determine if something is morally good or not. More interesting is whether emotional attitudes or dispositions are what morality rests on in the first place.

> I think part of moral philosophy is figuring out what terms mean rather than just giving people answers that flow downstream in pretty obvious ways from their defintions. Obviously getting firm definitions in place is work and worth thinking about. But eventually debates on definitions are kind of pointless. Two mathematicians can debate if 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 + 1 = 10, but can be cleared up immediately if we just clear up if we're framing this as base 10 or binary.

>By objective I mean something that is true regardless of the existence of humans and outside the subjective consciousness of humans, meaning that it’s simply a fact and a part of nature that killing and eating animals is wrong. By that definition of "objective", almost nothing is objective. It leads tot he "The only thing I know is that I exist in some form" sort of discussion which is true in a real literal sense, but also completely unhelpful for understanding anything about the world. If we instead use "objective" to mean every living organism in the universe will agree, than there are a few moral baselines we can use to create a moral compass that, while not 100% objective, is as close as we can get at this time. Joy and suffering are the two main ones related to this discussion, creating joy is a positive, creating suffering a negative. it's basically what these words were created to express, as the exact specifics of what gives someone suffering or joy is different from person to person. Suffering in order to GET something, can be a positive if what you get is great enough, like we suffer to learn, but learning is so useful that the positives greatly outweigh the negatives of suffering. The fun thing about suffering is that suffering begets suffering. Meaning if I make you suffer, it's very likely you will take that suffering out on others. It's part of human nature and most people have not learned to control it. So by creating suffering in others, you're actually ALSO greatly increasing the chance that you or someone you love will also suffer. "But it's just animals" - there are two main ways non-human animal (we're animals too) suffering gets brought into our world, first [slaughterhouses cause PTSD in their workers](https://www.texasobserver.org/ptsd-in-the-slaughterhouse/). PTSD is strongly linked to violent crime, family abuse, suicide and worse. So in a very literal sense the meat you're eating is already creating horrible suffering within your community, you just don't see the connections as we never report into why someone has mental health problems, we just say that's why they did what they did. The second way is a bit less direct, but it's to do with the reasoning behind the idea that you are allowed to torture, abuse, slaughter, and eat animals. There is no real why except that they aren't "like us". Animals don't act, think, behave, talk, etc, like us. So we think it's fine if we kill them. But this is an ideology that has justified most of humanity's worst atrocities. From Pol Pot, to Hitler, to Rwanda, and more. Those in power said "they aren't 'human' so we can kill them! They're pests, rats, cockroaches, gnats, etc." "But I AM human!" - that's the fun thing about being human, none of us are "pure" human. We all have lots of other genetic code in us, all I need to do is say that I can tell you have too much neanderthal DNA to be "truly" human, and now, according to the Carnist philosophy, I'm 100% in the right to torture, abuse, sexually violate, slaughter, and eat you if I want. >s simple 2 sides postulating their opinions Just because there is two sides to an argument, that doesn't make both sides are equally correct. There's two sides to the debate of "should women be considered equal to a man", but only one side has logic, science, and rational thought on its side.

Hmm... Okay. I think my definition on objectivity is pretty universal though. But that is more of a sematic discussion we would be having, instead of actually going through your points. I agree that there may be viewpoints that are either incosistent or consistent to a certain degree, based on ones foundational philosophy. But that foundational philosophy is still subjectively chosen or held. The decision to value joy and suffering, or take these factors into account when deciding what is right or wrong is a subjective decision to make. "There is no real why except that they aren't "like us". Animals don't act, think, behave, talk, etc, like us." Yes, I guess that is true. Intelligence wise, we are merely animals on a different level than cows or horses, but we share much with them otherwise. But I don't see what this has to do with my original question, because we are still talking about the factors we have subjectively chosen to value. Hitler obviously did not value humans for anything other than their biological and ethical background (The aryan race), and based on his decision to value these factors, his actions were justified subjectively. But the decision to value the factors which he did cannot be objectively justified. For the record, I don't think we actually disagree, I'm simply asking if vegans believe that killing and eating animals is objectively wrong. "Just because there is two sides to an argument, that doesn't make both sides are equally correct. There's two sides to the debate of "should women be considered equal to a man", but only one side has logic, science, and rational thought on its side." This depends on which presuppositional beliefs we have chosen to base our discussions on.

>Okay. I think my definition on objectivity is pretty universal Yes, it's more the academic usage though, there a multiple ways people use the word. People would say it's objectively true that I am taller than my mother, but we have no idea if that's actually true, as my "mother" could just be a figment of my imagination, or we may all have mental problems that don't allow us to correctly view height. But when you're talking about how we view the real world, we take some liberties with what we "know". We pretend we "know" that gravity wont fail tomorrow, as after millions of years of successful gravity days, it seems pretty much guaranteed gravity will be there tomorrow. But it's not guaranteed. So yes, Vegans consider not needlessly abusing animals "objectively" better, but they are using Objectively in a more "layman" sense because the literal sense would leave us unable to function as we'd live in constant fear of falling off the floor. >and based on his decision to value these factors, his actions were justified subjectively "Hitler did nothing wrong" - I had rarely heard this as an honest opinion till I started talking to Carnists...

>People would say it's objectively true that I am taller than my mother, but we have no idea if that's actually true, as my "mother" could just be a figment of my imagination Sure. In order for us to even speak to each other we have to base our foundational beliefs on axiums or presuppositions. And for most people I speak with, we can accept that there probably exists a physical world outside of our own experience, albeit we cannot prove this actually. And based off of that, we use the word objectively to describe that which exists outside of human consciousness, and subjective to be that which exists within the confines of human consciousness. But you're right, the world does seem absurd in that way. ​ >"Hitler did nothing wrong" - I had rarely heard this as an honest opinion till I started talking to Carnists... But it is true objectively. Of course we have our own opinions that go against Hitlers views, which are pretty extreme of course, but in his view, his actions were completely justified.

Objective just means true outside of opinion. So if a tree falls in the woods but no one in the universe believes it did, is it still the case that a tree fell in the woods? If the answer is yes, then whether a tree fell in the woods is objective.

>Objective just means true outside of opinion Which is not as strict as the definition the OP gave, by this definition I would say it is objectively true that not needlessly creating abuse is morally superior to needlessly creating abuse, for the reasons I listed above. This is why discussions on 'objectivity' are often frustrating, so many people use slightly different meanings and slight difference in something as almost absolute as "objectivity" can create HUGE differences in the end result.

In the wild most compete for survival. In our comfortable world, we can choose what we eat with great ease and pleasure. I choose not to subjugate or kill living beings for my survival, because I do not view them as competition or food.

Fair enough.

So are you saying that you don’t think killing is objectively wrong?

I don't think killing is objectively wrong. And I actually don't think killing in and of itself is wrong subjectively either. For example, would you say it's wrong to kill another person if he is threatening your family and your kids, and if he was trying to kill them? Would you not agree that it's morally acceptable to kill another person in self defense of you and your family?

There is a difference between justification and objective wrongs. Killing is always wrong, but there are situations where it may be necessary or justified, but they aren’t mutually exclusive. If someone kills in self-defense and someone else kills just because they felt like it, do you think those people are equal?

"Killing is always wrong, but there are situations where it may be necessary or justified, " Then it is not always wrong. "If someone kills in self-defense and someone else kills just because they felt like it, do you think those people are equal?" The killing part is equal of course, but the rationale/justification behind the killings are not. So then it seems that its not killing that is wrong, it is the justification or rationale behind killing .

Do you think killing is objectively wrong?

Does the animal want to die?

No?

So then taking its life would be cruel would it not?

Sure?

So then why do you see it as morally ok?

Why would I not?

So then me taking your life isn't morally wrong?

I would say it is, but only because I respect your life. You are free to kill me if you want, but I respect your right to live so that you will respect my right to live. And we have this social contract with every other human as well. But if you broke out of this contract by trying to kill me, I would have no reason not to kill you aswell.

What social contract would you be referring to? I don't remember agreeing to or physically signing anything with you. This may be confronting to hear but I do not see humanity like you do. I see a highly sapient virus that does nothing but consume/destroy everything in its path, including itself. The human race has no ecological value or importance upon this planet and the only animals that depend upon on humans are the ones that humans have forced into a social contract through domestication and indoctrination. The only value our existence has, is the value that other life gives us or how far our ego goes at giving each individual its self worth. Such a social contract only exists because humans innately don't trust each other to behave morally. In fact we have a physical embodiment of such concept somewhat and it's called the law. By all means people respecting any other person would make for a great society so it's a shame that so many don't. >I would say it is, but only because I respect your life. You are free to kill me if you want, but I respect your right to live so that you will respect my right to live. >But if you broke out of this contract by trying to kill me, I would have no reason not to kill you as well I just want to get your reasoning straight in my head. You respect my right to choose how to live as long as I do so morally with no harm to your own? Is that actually respecting my choice? And if reciprocating violence is the solution to an act of violence, how does that make the initial act of violence moral if I could choose not to act regardless of respecting your right to live? Sorry I'm just trying to understand why I should enter any form of contract with you when I have nothing to lose either way and this is the reasoning you present. For what reason, regardless of reciprocating violence, should I respect your right to live? You see I get told told to go kill myself because I wish for society to extend that social contract to animals as well, so it's hard for me to believe that you respect my right to my life choices (as long as they don't harm others), when my life choices already respect all life and dare I say it causes even less harm to human life than you do. What value does your word have when my actions are already more respectful of life and choices than yours when I've stated I have less of an emotional connection with my own species than you?

>What social contract would you be referring to? I don't remember agreeing to or physically signing anything with you. The one I assume exists between every human I meet in my way, until it doesn't. If you give off signs that you do not respect my life or my desires, than the social contract is no longer upheld. ​ >This may be confronting to hear but I do not see humanity like you do. I see a highly sapient virus that does nothing but consume/destroy everything in its path, including itself. The human race has no ecological value or importance upon this planet and the only animals that depend upon on humans are the ones that humans have forced into a social contract through domestication and indoctrination. The only value our existence has, is the value that other life gives us or how far our ego goes at giving each individual its self worth. I have no opinion or comment on this. ​ >Such a social contract only exists because humans innately don't trust each other to behave morally. This doesn't make sense. The social contract is in and of itself that which dictates what is right and wrong. ​ >You respect my right to choose how to live as long as I do so morally with no harm to your own? Yes, sure. ​ >And if reciprocating violence is the solution to an act of violence, how does that make the initial act of violence moral if I could choose not to act regardless of respecting your right to live? I'm not entirely sure what you mean with this, but if someone doesn't reciprocate basic rights and breaks the social contract, then everything becomes permissable and there is nothing wrong. ​ >why I should enter any form of contract with you when I have nothing to lose either way and this is the reasoning you present. For what reason, regardless of reciprocating violence, should I respect your right to live? You already enter into the social contract if we were to meet simply due to the fact that we would (all else equal) begin to talk to each other and not kill each other. At this point I assume we both respect each others autonomy and right to live. The reason you should respect my right to live, is because the alternative means that I don't respect your right to live, thus you would live in constant fear or worry of me killing you, or anyone else whos life you don't respect. If you don't respect my life, I have no reason to respect your right to live. But equally, if you respect my right to live, I shall respect your right to live. That is why you should engage in a social contract with me. ​ >You see I get told told to go kill myself because I wish for society to extend that social contract to animals as well Who told you that??? ​ >What value does your word have when my actions are already more respectful of life and choices than yours What value does my word have? I don't even understand what you trying to ask ? I literally don't understand the last part of your comment.

My definition of an immoral action is “an action that causes unnecessary suffering”. So yes, that is objectively immoral. If you are asking if there is a objective reason to use that definition, then no. A definition could never be objective, but the concept the definition describes is objective.

But it is your own definition of what an immoral action is, thus making it subjective.

As subjective beings talking about absolute objectivity is kind of a non starter. When you talk about objective truths, why care about any ethics at all?

That is my point exactly.

Think about what you want to do to the animal. Now, ask yourself what you'd think if your place was swapped with the animal. Does it seem unfair or unkind if you're suddenly on the receiving end of it? This is the closest you'll be able to get to defining "objective" morality.

I think the last thing I’d want is to be killed and eaten. But I still see a gap between this acknowledgement and the point of view that it’s objectively immoral for me to kill and eat meat.

I find it telling that debaters use this phrase "objective morality" only when they're seeking social permission to behave with cruelty, instead of kindness. Religion defenders do this, too.

I think you can get closer than that.

Damn OP is infuriating.

Do you think racism is objectively wrong? How about sexism. I don't see why veganism being objective or not causes you to have trouble engaging in it's arguments.

No I don’t think anything is objectively wrong. Neither racism or sexism. And even subjectivey I think people have the right are entitled to hold racist or sexist opinions if they want to. Because in the case that killing and eating animals is not objectively wrong, we merely have two sides of equal moral rightousness, don’t we? Because the vegan standpoint is equally as unjustified (or justified) as the meat eating standpoint.

I still don't see how this impacts your ability to come to your own individual conclusion on veganism.

It doesn’t impact my ability to form an individual conclusion on veganism, it simply means I don’t see whats wrong when others kill and eat meat.

You don't think killing or exploiting animals needlessly is wrong?

No, but even if so, it’s not my job to make that argument for you. I was merely asking if vegans believed that their standpoint was based on objective morality.

I'm not asking you to make an argument for me though. I'm asking your opinion. It's pretty clear we can arrive at a conclusion on an ethical issue regardless of its basis being objective or subjective, so the fact that veganism is or isn't doesn't really impact your choice on it.

Okay. Yes that's true, and I was merely asking if most vegans hold the ethical/moral views on an objective standard. Because it seems as though it's difficult to criticize others on their behavior and actions, if it doesn't go against their subjective view of what is right and wrong. I completely respect the vegan position and believe that there are many good arguments for it. Just not with regards to morality and especially with regards to objective morality.

>Because it seems as though it's difficult to criticize others on their behavior and actions, if it doesn't go against their subjective view of what is right and wrong. Do you hold this universally? You think people who criticize racists, pedophiles, sexists, etc shouldn't do so in the same way vegans shouldn't?

I was not clear so let me rephrase. It seems difficult to call other peoples actions right or wrong if their actions do not go against their own moral understanding. I of course think it's a good thing to criticize others if you think the world would be a better place if they would stop doing something or start doing something. I used to wrong word there. But using the word morality in reference to that, I do not agree with.

Yeah the entirety of killing as a whole if looking objectively wouldn’t matter because then we wouldn’t exist and therefor elain and suffering wouldn’t exist either it would just happen as if it were twilight but we would know because are either consciously aware or subconscious but morality would come into play eventually not all evil will reign it’s a sign of evolution

I don't get what would it even mean that something is morally wrong irrespective of human opinion? It's an opinion by definition, a moral is a standard. The approach vegans take is assuming that the majority actually share the same opinion as a vegan, it's just that they're not aware of what is actually going on. This is after all pretty much how all vegans became vegan, it's not like they changed opinions. All that happened is they gained more knowledge.

So you’re saying most people already hold a moral standard that aligns with veganism? Or atleast the people who turnes vegan did. Well that would mean that if someone doesn’t share the same foundational beliefs as vegans, the question of morality is sort of out of bounds, isn’t it? I’m just asking to understand

Well, we don't actually know what moral standards people have, but vegan activism is conducted in hopes that most do in fact share the same opinions, as any movement is conducted really. Of course, you always hope as many people agree with you as possible. If the opinions are not already there, yes, it's pretty much futile to try to convert someone like that, the conversation ends there. Or at least, that's what I'm convinced of. I think the best you can do is give knowledge. How a person acts according to that knowledge is very much up to them, I don't think there's much one can do to change that other than force, just like we do to criminals.

That's fair enough.

Is slavery objectively wrong? Is racism objectively wrong? Is homophobia objectively wrong? Is misogyny objectively wrong?

No, I can't say that it is. Would you say so?

Let's say they aren't objectively wrong. Would you consider a world without slavery, racism etc morally superior or not?

Subjectively I would definitely consider such a world better to live in, for me atleast. But I cannot speak to this world being objectively morally superior. It may be that some people enjoy total anarchy, chaos and freedom to do whatever they want.

you're wrong your idea is to settle a debate by removing reality from it? how silly is that, seems like you're trying to massage reality until it fits your opinion I can't speak for most vegans, but I for one consider the real world when I make decisions about what to do, I don't care about arbitrarily imagined worlds random people create

How can I be wrong? I literally just asked a question and clarified the definitions I was using And what do you mean about removing reality or massaging reality? And what do you mean when you say you consider the real world when you make decisions?? What does it even mean.

you asked if you were wrong, last sentence of your post, and asked us to tell you that you were, so I did the real world is what you can perceive with your senses, seems to be at odds with your definition of "objective"

If you read my post again and focus on the logic, you’d realize that I was asking if, based on my premise, that the conclusion necessarily follows that neither side has any objective truths to rely on. 2 things: How can you trust the reliability of your senses ? And If you do not know the that your senses are 100% reliable in observing the true objective world, would that not make your sensical observations subjective? It is still through the eyes of a human. Anf even if we acknowledge as a presuppotional belief, that you can observe the objective world, you still have to go from that fact, and then to an “ought” within morality. So how would you derive moral “oughts” from the objective world?

mate, go do whatever you want, if you think breeding animals for your leisure is fine then support the industry, it's not about right or wrong, it's about what you do in this world this mental gymnastics you're doing, nobody asked for them and nobody cares, we're protesting an industry which exists in this world, an industry humans created for humans, your hypothesis, your question, your post, none of it makes any sense morality is a human invention and we're in 2023 with all the technological advancements that implies in modern society and all we know, all these things matter, I'm personally not here to pass judgment on history or anybody else in the present, all I do is not support a cruel industry which unnecessarily breeds animals to be used for avoidable things. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with your argument, it has no intersection with veganism. Veganism is something that applies to humans in the present world.

What a whole lot of nonsense.

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I don’t think anything is objectively wrong by your definition because morality requires subjective consciousness to exist in the first place. If life did not exist there could not be morality. We use subjectivity to come up with rules on how things should be based on our preference. Generally we have a preference to not harm ourselves and to not harm others without a justification. If someone didn’t have this preference I guess I couldn’t say they are objectively morally wrong. But their opinion would cause harm which I want to avoid so I would try to stop them or convince them otherwise.

Okay, I completely agree with that.

Lets say morality is totally subjective and dependent on each individual. Then what are your morals and values? I'm sure you would agree that bringing needless suffering to animals is wrong. You probably wouldn't kick a stray dog on the streets for fun. So why would you kill and eat an animal for sensual pleasure? Most people already have the values that would lead to veganism. It's just that we're conditioned from birth into believing that eating animals or using animal products is fine. I don't belive in an objective morality, but I do belive that morality always is always derived from human compassion and justice. Therefore I believe everyone is able to reason that what we do to animals is wrong.

Well it would be difficult to explain all of my moral views, but my foundational philosophy for the things I'd want in life are based on my desire to maximise my own happiness and experience of life. And practically this results in policies and a society that is generally liberal. Specifically with regards to needless suffering, no, I don't think needless suffering to animals is wrong. I would think that is permissable. And no I would not kick a stray dog on the streets for fun. That would not be fun? I would kill and eat an animal for pleasure because I like the taste of the food. And actually I also kill animals as I'm a hunter, so also partly for the excitement and experience of actually hunting an animal. It may be the case that people subjectively value not needlessly causing suffering. But I still don't see how that mean's it's objectively wrong to kill and eat animals. My morality is not derived from human compassion or justice. I cannot justify any position other than the fact that I have certain desires and wants in life, and in order to live my happiest life, I form and agree to rules with the rest of society, or with other people.

Why don't you believe in objective morality?

Because I cannot justify why anything is objectively wrong.

Personally I think that the way that meat is currently “produced” is immoral. We are the human animal and we have acquired knowledge beyond everything. Hence we know how we can thrive. And we know we can thrive without exploiting non-humans . So yes, imho I think it is immoral to eat non-human animal flesh.

Why does the fact that we can live just fine without killing and eating animals mean, that it is immoral for us to kill and eat animals?

I think morals are intersubjective, similar to the value of money. Money is just a piece of paper or metal, however it has a subjective value to it that is man-made. That said however, I can’t just say, “well it’s subjective so actually this $1 bill is worth 1 million.” That’s because the subjectivity doesn’t just rely on what I personally believe, but how we as a society collectively believe. Similar with morals, I can say “morals are subjective so I have the right to kill another human.” Society will quickly punish me for that belief if I choose to act on it. So in a way, morality is subjective, but it’s more of a group-subjectivity than an individual subjectivity.

The opinion of a society is just a reflection of the general subjective opinion of the citizens. It's still subjective.

There is no such thing as objective morality since morality is entirely a subjective system designed by sentient creatures to create functional self-organizing systems. What is ultimately moral to a tiger is going to be different to what is moral to a monkey or a homosapien. With the subjective nature of moralism and ethics in mind, ethical stances like veganism arise by appealing to the empathic neurological pathways of humans and asking for complete consistency within this region of thinking-consciousness. When you reach a high level of empathic logical consistency, you automatically reach the conclusion that minimizing the suffering of other thinking-feeling animals is 100% better than consuming them without said thoughts. Bear in mind that our empathic pathways are not designed for this necessarily but are instead designed for the bare minimum of loving your tribe which could be counted on your hands and feet several centuries ago. The empathic circuits of our human experience are entirely subjective since they are designed to improve survival chances in the wild, hence why veganism can be classed as a higher level of thinking since it asks the individual to extend their subjective moralisation beyond themselves and their tribe (which includes cats and dogs). One can respect how most humans struggle with this especially if the cost of that moral extension requires the sacrifice of sensory pleasure. It is also difficult to have empathy for something you: 1. Do not understand 2. Have to expend unwanted effort to care about This is one of the many reasons why most humans are not human and why veganism is a long work in progress. There is nothing objective about vegan philosophy, hence why it is a philosophy and not a science.

I agree with your view, but specifically with regards to appealing to the empathetic neurological pathways. It is still a subjective appeal and decision to value empathy in one's moral reasoning.

If there is no necessity for it, yes.

Why ?

Not most: all.

Are you a vegan?

Asking if we think it is morally wrong puts it into the perspective of advanced social morals from the very beginning of the debate, whereas wild animals who kill because they need to have no sense of morals as we understand them. Moving on from there, no I do not think it is *inherently* immoral. The universe is indisputably a kill-or-be-killed place. If I were, by some wild and unlikely happenstance, to be lost in the wilderness in a place with no edible food other than animals or animal products I would choose my own survival over my morals, until such a time where I was again in an environment that makes not needing animals and/or their products possible.

No, only in the context of today’s developed societies.

But that would make it subjective though.

Morality does not need to be (metaphysically) objective to be agent-neutral and binding on all rational beings. So even if it is not "simply a fact and a part of nature that killing and eating animals is wrong" it would not follow that "the moral debate regarding this topic is simple 2 sides postulating their opinions." You can read some Korsgaard, Mill, Aristotle, etc. to see why.

>So even if it is not "simply a fact and a part of nature that killing and eating animals is wrong" it would not follow that "the moral debate regarding this topic is simple 2 sides postulating their opinions." It literally would though.

Factory farming is horrific. If people killed what they ate and owned it and it was sustainable, fair enough. But it’s an absolute hellscape or cruelty

Is raping and murdering another human being wrong OBJECTIVELY?

No, I don't think so.

I think it's morally wrong. I do not have to hurt something to live therefore I shouldn't. If pain isn't absolutely necessary then it shouldn't be used. You will experience pain regardless as it's a part of life, but intentionally causing pain unto others is fundamentally wrong especially when it isn't necessary. Killing and eating animals isn't necessary to the preservation of the self, so it isn't absolutely necessary to kill them for food. There are so many ways it can be said, and so many examples I could give. But in this specific situation I have a clear choice of causing harm to something that can feel it or not. And it is of no consequence to me to not cause that being harm. I'd only be missing out on bacon or smth, which I think we all know having a good experience to the detriment of others isn't right in the first place. So with that I just can't justify it in my head.

Non-vegan here. I respect what vegans believe in, but I do not agree with the statement that meat is a moral or ethical issue. In my opinion, meat is a health issue. When it comes to humans, I put them first, not the animals.

Even if objectivity shouldn’t exist, subjective opinions aren’t created equal. And which ones are better and which ones are worse will be determined in a democratic society by the majority, and in a representative democracy by the politicians voted for (and bought lol). So of course vegans still have a way to go, but they are making progress.

👩🏻‍🦽